3,564 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1894–2026)
Failure to accommodate claims arise when an employer does not provide reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability or sincerely held religious belief. Under the ADA and Title VII, employers must engage in an interactive process to identify effective accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Common accommodations include modified schedules, assistive technology, and workplace modifications.
Employers most frequently appearing in failure to accommodate rulings.
In this child-custody dispute between the defendant, James W.A. Jackson, and the plaintiff, Kelly K. Fitzgerald, the defendant appealed an order declaring that the Rhode Island Family Court has jurisdiction over the matter. The defendant raised numerous issues in support of his appeal at its root, he disputed the Rhode Island Family Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter and personal jurisdiction over him. <br> <br>The Supreme Court held that the Rhode Island Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction over the case and that the defendant waived the issue of personal jurisdiction by consenting to jurisdiction. The Supreme Court further held that the hearing justice erred in not ruling on the defendant's emergency motion for temporary orders. As to the defendant's suggestion that future evidentiary hearings should be held via WebEx rather than in person because he resides in Australia, the Supreme Court stated that, where possible, reasonable accommodations should be made for a noncitizen defendant in a global custody dispute. The Court additionally concluded that the defendant's remaining arguments were unavailing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Family Court. <br><br>
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.